' ^ •'*• ^.^^ •<«.*•-• A? ^ "'• *^^ 

































'^-.<f 











.-^^ .^Ic!»i^o U.a'' :^^\ %../ .*ii^l£^''o V.^^ .^ 






vs^ 

3^"^ 



t\ '•'♦i^'^ y.-^kX /.:i^.*<i 









• «o 



V* .♦J 






.0- 



V 












%* • • * A^ ^ 



**o« 





■\ 










EMANCIPATION OF SLAVES IN REBEL STATES. 

SPEECii OF HON. A. HAEDING, 

OF KENTUCKY, 

In the House of Sepresentatives, December 17, 1881, 

On the joint resolution relative to tlie right and duty of the President in regard to 
persons held as slaves in any military district in a state of insurrection. 



Mr. HAEDING said : 

Mr. Speaker : If tliere ever was a time in the liistory of any 
nation, or any people, when <?very feeling of passion or party 
prejudice should be banished from all minds — when the hearts 
and hands of all Union men should be united, in the great and 
common purpose of saving an imperiled country; we have reached 
that period and that time. And it seems strange to me that such 
should not be the fiict among the Eepresentatives of the people 
in this House. It is "passing strange" that, at such a period, 
any mere matter of sectional or party strife should be allowed to 
obtrude upon our consideration, when all that we, as patriots, 
hold dear, is evidently imperiled and threatened with utter over- 
throw. 

Suppose a large and splendid mansion, erected by the toil and 
labor of many years, at the cost of a large expenditure of money 
and treasure; suppose it to have been fitted up in the most costly 
and magnificent style by a kind father, with separate suits of 
apartments for the difierent families of his children, each exactly 
suited to the wants and convenience of its occupants ; suppose 
these families to have taken possession of their respective apart- 
ments, each governing its own afiairs, and having the entire con- 
trol and arrangement'of its section of the mansion, in respect to 
its furniture and every domestic afiair; suppose that while^ thus 
living in harmony and prosperit}^, suddenly the alarm of fire is 
raised — the mansion is beginning to burn. From their several 
apartments the families alfrush into the common hall. Strange 
to say, at this point an angry controversy springs up. The fire 
is already blazing through" the roof of the common structure, and 
' if it is extinguished, the united efforts of all nlust be exerted. 
"But," says the head of one of the families, "I will not aid in 
extinguishing the fire unless you alter one of your domestic ar- 
rangements." Another refuses to aid unless another changes his 
domestic concerns; and so an angry controversy arises and pre- 
vails, until the magnificent edifice is wrapt in fiames, and every 
apartment sinks in common ruin. 

Mr. Speaker, is not that a faint picture of what we are doing 
here at this day and this hour? The great problem of man's ca- 
pacity for free, popular self-government, is being solved before 
the nations of the earth, it may be for the last time; and the true 
friends of liberty, the friends of popular free government, from 
every dark laud of despotism, are now looking with anxious and 



■ \\\% 



tearful eyes to the solution of this mighty problem. Shall we, 
at a time like this, sufier ourselves to be drawn off by mere mat- 
ters of local' or sectional strife — shall any angry feeling, shall any 
matter of party interest be allowed to obtrude itself at this dark 
hour ? 

Sir, we might do well, it seems to me, in this dark hour, to 
remember that the liberty which we now enjoy is the price of the 
blood of our ancestors. We should look back to that dark and 
bloody period, that seven years' struggle through the wilderness 
of the Revolution. It seems to me a solemn voice comes up at 
this day from every battle-field of the Revolution, saying to us 
"beware, think, reflect, pause, before you take another step! 
Your liberty is the price of our blood." The claims of the pres- 
ent generation appeal to us in plaintive tones; the destiny of 
generations yet unborn appeals to us; all the high and solemn 
considerations of the past, of the present, and of the long-distant 
future, come up and impress the conviction that a high and sol- 
emn responsibility rests upon us. Nay, sir, a responsibility so 
fearfully solemn that, the most patriotic and the wisest in the land 
might well pause, tremble, and exclaim, "who is sufficient for 
these things?" 

It is not my purpose, on this occasion, to utter a solitary, word 
that should excite unkind feelings in the mind of any man pres- 
ent upon this much-agitated subject of slavery. I entertain no 
feeling but that of entire respect for any sentiment honestly and 
sincerely entertained upon that question by other gentlemen, 
however much I may differ with them; nay, sir, gloomy forebo- 
dings of the future rise up and so overwhelm me as to leave no 
room for the indulgence of angry party controversy. 

Entertaining these feelings and these views, it was with the 
deepest pain that I saw, on the ver}' first day of the session — even 
'in the morning hour of that session — this much-to-be-dreaded 
controversy sprung upon us. Not more than two hours had 
elapsed before the proposition now under consideration was in- 
troduced, and the eflfort made to press it through the House under 
the previous question, without the opportunity of a moment's 
consideration. I say I was pained and grieved to witness this 
hasty and ill-timed movement. I confess I was more alarmed at 
the indications I then saw upon this floor, than I had been since 
this revolutionary storm burst forth. I thought a disposition 
was manifested to run heedlessly and rashly on, without pausing 
to consider the consequences of the action it was proposed to 
take; but when I saw gentlemen were disposed to postpone their 
action until opportunity should be given to consider, reflect, and 
reason, my hopes revived, and every indication since that day in- 
duces me to think it is the intention of the House to allow a calm 
and full examination of the questions now under consideration, 
"before coming to any final conclusion. 

What I desire on this occasion, then, is, that before taking any 
jatep we shall calmly consider the great questions presented in the 



resolutions before us, questions involving the destinies, not only 
of the present, but of generations yet to come. In coming to 
that consideration I would, as far as possible divest myself of all 
prejudices arising from any previous theory. I prefer that every 
argument shall be carefully weighed, and then that the House 
shall cautiously and calmly act. 

I oppose these resolutions, then,^r.?/, because we have no con- 
stitutional power to pass them, nor any of the bills or resolutions 
which have been introduced on this subject. 

I object to them,secondly, because the faith of Congress, of the 
President, and of this Administration has been more than once 
pledged, in the most solemn and public manner against all inter- 
ference with the institutions of slavery; and to sanction the policy 
now proposed would be a plain and palpable violation of the 
plighted faith of this Congress, of the President, and the Admin- 
istration. 

In the third place, I oppose these resolutions because the legis- 
lation proposed is forbidden by every principle of sound policy. 

In the fourth place, I oppose them because these and other kin- 
dred propositions introduced upon this subject, propose to inau- 
gurate a warfare which would involve in its horrors the loyal as 
well as the disloyal, the innocent as well as the guilty, having no 
respect to age, sex, or condition; a species of warfare disgraceful 
to any civilized or Christian nation. 

In support of ray first two propositions, I beg leave to call the 
attention of the House to some documentary evidence, very recent 
in its date. I do not propose to go back and ransack the records 
of the past. I will come within the period of our present troubles ; 
nay, sir, in the evidence I propose to introduce, I will not go be- 
hind the period often months. First, I call the attention of the 
House to a resolution passed with remarkable unanimity by Con- 
gress on the 11th day of February last, introduced, I believe, by 
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, as a substitute for certain resolutions 
which had been introduced by Mr. Palmer, of New York. I ask 
the Clerk to read the proceedings on that occasion, including the 
names of the members who voted for the resolution. 

The Clerk read, as follows : 

"Mr. Sherman, by unanimous consent, submitted the following amendment in 
the nature of a substitute for both of the resolutions submitted by Mr. Palmer, viz: 
Strike out all after the word ' Resolved," and insert : 

'' * That neither the Congress of the United States nor the people or governments 
of the non-slaveholding States have the constitutional right to legislate upon, or in- 
terfere with, slavery in any of the slaveholding States in the Union.' 

*' And the question being put, ' Will the House agree thereto ? ' 

*'It was decided in the affirmative. 

" The question then recurring on the said resolutions as amended, 

"Mr. Sherman moved the previous question; which was seconded, and the main 
question ordered and put, viz : ' Will the House agree to the said resolutions as 
amended ? ' 

" And it was decided ia the affirmative — yeas 161, nays 0. 

^* The yeas aad nays being desired by one fifth of the members present, 



" Those who voted in the afiSrmative are — 



" Mr. Charles F. Adams, 
Green Adams, 
Cyrus Aldrich,* 
William Allen,* 
Thomas L. Anderson, 
William C. Anderson, 
William T. Avery, 
Elijah Babbitt,* 
Thomas J. Barr, 
J. R. Barrett, 
John A. Bingham,* 
Samuel S. Blair,* 
Harrison G. Blake, 
Thomas S. Bocock, 
Alexander R. Boteler, 
Reese B. Brabson, 
William D. Brayton, 
George Briggs, 
Francis M. Bristow^ 
John Y. Brown, 
James Buffinton,* 
John C. Burch, 
Anson Burlingame, 
Henry C. Burnett, 
Martin Butterfield, 
James H. Campbell,* 
John Carey, 
Luther C. Carter, 
Charles Case, 
Horace F. Clark, 
John B. Clark, 
Stephen Coburn, 
John Cochrane, 
Schuyler Colfax,* 
Roscoe Conkling,* 
Thomas Corwin, 
John Covode,* i 

Samuel S. Cox,* 
James Craig, 
Samuel R. Curtis, 
Henry L. Dawes,* 
Charles Delano,* 
William H. Dimmick, 
R. Holland Duell,* 
AV. McKee Dunn,* 
Henry A. Edmundson,* 
Thomas M. Edwards, 
Thomas D. Eliot,* 
Alfred Ely,* 
AVilliam H. English, 
Emerson Etheridge, 
John F. Farnsworth, 
Orris S. Ferry, 
Thomas B. Florence, 
Stephen C. Foster, 
Augustus Frank,* 
Ezra B. French, 
Muscoe R. H. Garnett, 
John A. Gilmer, 
Daniel W. Gooch,* 

* Members of tlie 



" Mr. James H. Graham, 
Galusha A. Grow,* 
John A. Gurley,* 
Chapin Hall, 
Andrew J. Hamilton, 
J. Morrison Harris, 
John T. Harris, 
John B. Haskin, 
Robert Hatton, 
William Helmick, 
Charles B. Hoard, 
William S. Holman,* 
William Howard, 
William A. Howard, 
George AV. Hughes, 
James Humphrey, 
John Hutchins,* 
William Irvine, 
Albert G. Jenkins, 
Benjamin F. Junkin, 
Francis W. Kellogg,* 
William S. Kenyon, 
John W. Killinger,* 
Charles H. Larrabee, 
Shelton F. Leake, 
M. Lindley Lee, 
Owen Lovejoy,* 
William B. Maclay, 
Robert Mallory,* 
Gilman Marston,* 
Elbert S. Martin, 
Horace Maynard,* 
John A. McCleruand, 
James B. McKean,* 
Jacob K. McKenty, 
Robert McKnight * 
Edward McPhersou,* 
John S. Millson, 
William Millward, 
William Montgomery, 
Laban T. Moore, 
James K. Moorhead,* 
Justin S. Morrill,* 
Edward Joy Morris, 
Isaac N. Morris, 
Freeman H. Morse, 
Thomas A. R. Nelson, 
William E. Niblack, 
John T. Nixon,* 
John W. Noell,* 
George W. Palmer, 
John J. Perry, 
John U. Pettit, 
Samuel 0. Peyton, 
John S. Phelps,* 
Albert G. Porter,* 
John F. Potter,* 
Emory B. Pottle, 
Roger A. Pryor, . 
James M. Quarles, 
present Congress. 



" Mr. John H. Reynolds, " Mr. James H. Tliomas, 

Alexander H. Rice, Cydnor B. Tompkins, 

Jetur R. Riggs, Charles R. Train,* 

Christopher Robinson, Carey A. Trimble,* 

Homer E. Royce, C. L. Vallandigham,* 

George W. Scranton, Zebulon B. Vance, 

Charles B. Sedgwick,* William Vandever * 

John Sherman, Charles H. Van Wyek,* 

Daniel E. Sickles, John P. Verree,* 

William N. H. Smith, Edward Wade, 

Elbridge G. Spaulding,* Henry Waldron, 

Francis E. Spinner, E. P. Walton,* 

Benjamin Stanton, C. C. Washburn, 

John W. Stevenson, Elihu B. Washburne,* 

William Stewart, Edwin H. Webster,* 

William B. Stokes, Alfred Wells, 

Lansing Stout William G. Whiteley, 

John L. N. Stratton,* James Wilson, 

Mason W. Tappan, William Windcm * 

Eli Thayer, Warren Winslow, 

Thomas C. Theaker, Samuel H. Woodson. 
" So the said resolutions, as amended, were unanimously agreed to." 

Mr. HARDING. Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that that reso- 
lutiou takes the ground that Congress has no-power to legislate 
upon, or to interfere with, the subject of slavery. Mark that ! — 
no power to legislate upon, or to interfere with, the subject of 
slavery in a State. That passed by a unanimous vote, on the 11th 
day of February last. It said to the whole Union, and to the 
world, by the voice of every man then present, that Congress had 
no power to legislate upon, or to interfere with, the institution of 
slavery in a State. 

I want gentlemen to observe the dates. I come now to the 
22d of July, 1861. On that day a resolution was introduced by 
my venerable colleague, [Mr. Crittenden,] which was in these 
words : 

^^ Resolved by the House of Representatices of the Congress of the UnUed States^ 
That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the dis- 
unionists of the Southern States, now in revolt against the constitutional Govern- 
ment, and in arms around the capital. That in this national emergency ,_ Congress, 
banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect onJ]! its duty to 
the whole country. That this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppres- 
sion, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing 
or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend 
and maintai^ia the stipremaci/ of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with 
all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ; and that as 
soon as these objects arg accomplished the war ought to cease." 

It is impossible for any ingenuity to torture this resolution so 
as to make it speak but one language. It tells us first what the 
war is no^ for ; and secondly what i/! zs for. The war is not for 
the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with slavery; and 
affirmatively the war is for the purpose of maintaining and pre- 
serving the Union and all of the rights of the several States un- 
impaired — slavery included. We are told that this is not to be 
a war upon slavery at all, but for the purpose of preserving the 
Union and the Constitution; that it is for the purpose of preserv- 

* Members of the present Congress. 



ing the Government and every right recognised and sanctioned 
by tlie Constitution. What was the vote on this resolution of the 
22d of July? If my recollection serves me, every man in this 
House voted for it save two — one from Missouri, [Mr. Reid,] and 
the other from Kentucky, [Mr. Burnett,] they voted against it, 
and for that, and many other sins committed by them, these two 
gentlemen have both been expelled from this body, and very 
properly, I think. So much, then, for what Congress has said. 
So much for the pledges given over and over again that slavery 
should not be interfered with — and that Congress had no consti- 
tutional power to legislate on the subject. 

Mr, Speaker, I next call the attention of the House to some 
extracts from a speech of Hon. Caleb B, Smith, Secretary of the 
Interior, delivered August 16, 1861, at Providence, Rhode Island. 
It was a most patriotic speech. He said : 

" The theory of this Government is, that the States are sovereign within their 
proper sphere. The Government of the United States has no mcn-evight to interfere 
with the institution of slavery in South CaroHna than it has to interfere with the 
peculiar institutions of Rhode Island. But, my friends, during the last summer, 
when the great political contest was raging throughout the land, then it was that 
designing and dishonest men, for the purpose of accomplishing their own selfish 
schemes, appealed to the prejudices of the Southern people, denouncing those who 
supported Mr. Lincoln as abolitionists, as men who would disregard the constitxt- 
tional rights of the South, and transcend the powers of the Government. Excited 
by means of these iniquitons appeals, they were ready to take up arms to prevent 
the inauguration of thai President whom a majority of the people had declared to 
be the ftian of their choice. My friends, I have known the President kvug and well. 
It has been my fortune to be selected as one of his constitutional advisers. I have 
had the honor of being connected with this Administration since its commence- 
ment; and I tell you to-night that you cannot find in South Carolina a man more 
anxious, religiously and scmpidously, to oI)serve all the features of the Constitution 
relating ^o slavery than Abraham Lincoln. My friends, we make no war upon 
Southern institutions. We recognise the nght of South Carolina and Georgia to hold 
slaves if they desire them," 

That speech, I repeat, was delivered on the 16th day of August, 
1861 ; and immediately preceding it, on the 8th day of August, 
an order was issued by the Secretary of War, General Cameron, 
to General Butler, as follows : 

" It is the desire of the President that all existing rights in all the States be fully 
respected and maintained. The war now prosecuted on the part of the Federal 
Government is a war for the Union, and for the preservation of all constitutional 
rights of States, and the citizens of the States in the Union." 

That order was issued to Major General Butler by the Secre- 
tary of War, with the sanction of the President. I ask you, then, 
whether the President is not himself pledged to this policy? He 
permitted himself to be pledged by Secretary Smith, and he was 
pledged by sanctioning the order of the Secretary of War which 
I have read. In his inaugural address, and in his message to 
Congress at its extra session, every man will recollect he took 
conservative ground. The ground taken was, that war was to 
be resorted to, only for the purpose of maintaining the Union and 
preserving the rights of the respective States. He tells us in his 
message to the present Congress — ^after his inaugural address, 



after his conservative message at the last session, after the 
patriotic speech of Secretary Smith in which he said the Presi- 
dent would respect the rights of slavery and protect it nnder the 
Government and the Constitution as much as any rnan in South 
Carolina — after all this, he declares in his late message at the 
present session of Congress, that nothing has occurred " to add 
to or subtract from the policy heretofore recommended." I ask, 
then, sir, whether the President does not stand pledged before 
the country and the world to this conservative policy ? It is plain 
that Congress and that this Administration all stand pledged in 
the most'solemn manner to the people of this country to follow 
this line of policy, and not depart from it. 

It follows, then, that Congress and the President being pledged 
to this conservative policy, he cannot now, nor can Congress, 
swerve from it without a palpable and plain violation of the 
plighted fa,ith of both. To sanction the policy proposed by these 
resolutions would be to turn the war away from its legitimate 
purpose, and indeed to turn the bayonets of our soldiers against 
the institution of slavery. It would not only be a departure from 
the policy heretofore indicated, but would in fact be a betrayal 
of the loyal States who have been induced with such great una- 
nimity to vote men and money to carry on this war for the de- 
fence of the Government. Why, sir, common honesty would 
demand, if I induce a man to engage in any enterprise on stipu- 
lated conditions, that I should stand by him and adhere to my 
agreement. Let me put the case to the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr. Eliot,] who introduced these resolutions. I take 
the ground that, this war should have nothing to do with the in- 
stitution of slavery any more than with any other State institu- 
tion. Let slavery alone, it will take care of itself. Let me argue 
with the gentleman from Massachusetts, who moved these reso- 
lutioiis. "The President and the Secretaries and Congress, by 
their action, have induced us with great unanimity to raise a very 
large army. Some six hundred thousand men have been brought 
into the field. Large amounts of money have been voted and ex- 
pended. Direct taxes have been imposed even upon the neces- 
saries of life. All this has been done to sustain, defend, and 
preserve the Constitution and Government of our fathers. 

But after our troops are in the field, and have their armor on, 
suppose I come up from Kentucky and propose to divert the war 
from, its legitimate objects, by urging that the regiments from 
Massachusetts should be employed part of their time in capturing 
and returning runaway slaves? Would not the Representatives 
from that State rise up and denounce such a proposition with the 
deepest indignation ? What, then, is it you propose ? If it would 
be bad laith and a fraud upon your troops to employ them in 
capturing and returning fugitive slaves, I ask whether it would 
not be far more fraudulent, "and in bad faith to the loyal men of 
Kentucky who have girded on their swords and gone out to fight 
for the Union, to tell them that from this time forth they shall 



be engacred in making war upon the institution of slaveiy — a 
war for the destruction of their own property, and leading on to 
all the bloody horrors of servile insurrection ? 

Sir, let me illustrate a little further, to show how destructive 
this policy is, and how strange it is that a man should be so far 
misguided as to permit himself to be influenced by it; and let no 
man press rashly on because he thinks himself right. We all 
know that a man's honest convictions of right, the burning zeal 
which he feels within him when he is engaged in this abolition 
war, or war of emancipation, is no evidence whatever that he is 
right. I remember that Paul himself was never more zealous 
than when he was breathing out threatenings and death; when 
he was pei'secuting, wasting, and destroying, the churches of 
God; and he was doing all that in the name of religion, and 
"verily thought he was doing God's service." But when the 
scales fell from his eyes he saw things in their true light, and he 
was a different man. T would that the scales might tall from the 
eyes of every one. "What has this question of slavery to do with 
this war? We have no more right to interfere with slavery" in a 
Southern State, than with the common school system, or any 
other local institution of a Northern State. Suppose I should 
arise here and propose a bill to abolish, or radically change the 
common-school system of Massachusetts, and should urge that 
dangerous political heresies were taught in those schools, such as 
the higher-law doctrine and various other wild and extravagant 
notions, tending to disqualify men for self-government and to 
array them against the Constitution of our country ; and that 
therefore these schools are at war with the spirit of our free in- 
stitutions and must be put down. Might not the gentleman 
from Massachusetts with great propriety interrogate me thus: 
"Sir, have you any property or interest in Massachusetts?" 
"None whatever." "Were you ever there?" "Never." "Do 
you desire to go there?" "Not at all; I am satisfied to live in 
Kentucky." "Do you ever expect to be in Massachusetts?" 
"No." "Wliy then concern yourself about our local institu- 
tions?" "Ah, but you forget, I am engaged in ^ a philanthrope 
line of kisiness;' that is all." [Laughter.] "Well, sir, perhaps 
you had better turn your attention to Kentucky. I have known 
men to show much good sense, and acquire fine fortunes, by 
simply attending to their own business; but no man ever mani- 
fested the one, or secured the other, by intermeddling with and 
giving his time to matters which no way concerned him. All 
that ever was accomplished in that way has been to annoy others 
and benefit nobody." How would I respond to that argument 
of ni}^ friend? I think I should "give it up," and immediately 
move to lay the bill upon the table. 

Now, that is exactly a parallel case with this. It is manifest 
that the Constitution of the United States secures to each State 
the right to have, or not have the institution of slavery — -just as 
essentially so, as it does the right to regulate your own co-m- 



raon-school system. We have no more right to make war upon 
the institution of slavery than upon any other local institution. 
The Constitution secures to each State the right of regulating its 
own domestic institutions; and it must necessarily protect sla- 
very, as certainly as it protects your own common-school system. 
Our wisest men, the President of the United States, the heads of 
Departments, and Congress, having with united voice declared 
that, we have no constitutional power upon the subject, how are 
you to escape from the_ difficulty ? This is a serious question. I 
was amused the other day by a speech, made by a distinguished 
gentleman in the other end of the Capitol, with a copy of which 
he favored me. 

The Speaker. The Chair will say that the gentleman from 
Kentucky is not in order in referring to any gentleman in the 
other branch of Congress. 

Mr. IIARDE^G. I will not refer to the gentleman by name; 
but it becomes necessary for me to refer to his argument upon 
this subject. I call upon all gentlemen to pause and reflect upon 
this subject. It is strange that all the efforts to escape from the 
palpable provisions of the Constitution are of a similar character. 
That gentleman — of distinguished abilit}' — went on to argue that 
Congress had the power to confiscate the property/ of rebels in the 
Southern States, which, I think, was sound. But having estab- 
lished that proposition to his own satisfaction, and made it clear, 
he said " it was equally clear that Congress had the power to 
emancipate the slaves of rebels, because it is as property that they 
(the rebels) profess to hold them." Look at that argument. You 
who rely on it say that you have only the right to confiscate the 
properti/ of rebels; but you say slaves are not property; therefore, 
according to your own logic, you cannot confiscate them. 

But I say, the right to confiscate property or slaves does not 
involve the right to emancipate slaves, because emancipation and 
confiscation are two very distinct things — and that distinction 
seems to have pressed upon that gentleman's mind throughout 
his whole argument. It evidently annoyed him, and seemed to 
start up at his back like a spectre, and would not down at his 
bidding. You do not propose to confiscate slaves at all, but you 
propose to emancipate them. That is not confiscation. To con- 
fiscate property is to seize and apply it to the public use. You 
do not propose to do that. You propose to destroy the title of 
the master, but not to confiscate or seize the property in aid of 
the public treasury. Under the idea of confiscation, would any 
man here for a moment advocate the policy of shooting and kill- 
ing all the horses, cattle, and stock of rebels; burning up and 
consuming their barns and dwelling-houses, carrying desolation 
and ruin through the country, until the whole Southern land was 
blighted and blasted, as if smitten by the lightnings of heaven? 
No gentleman would defend such cruel and savage barbarity. 
You can confiscate slaves just as you confiscate horses, treating 
them as property, and converting them to public use. But I 



10 

deny that, you can emancipate slaves under the idea of confisca- 
tion, or that you can turn loose four or five millions of slaves 
upon the Southern people to annoy them, any more than you 
can kill and destroy other property, burn up and consume houses, 
and spread desolation over the whole land. How then can you 
emancipate slaves without a palpable violation of the Constitu- 
tion and the oaths you have taken to support it? 

The speech of my friend from Kansas, [Mr. Conway,] in some 
respects a very able one, presents a greater variety, suited to 
every political appetite, than any other speech I ever heard; and 
it reminded me of the vision of "the sheet knit together at the 
four corners, containing all manner of four-footed beasts of the 
earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air," 
so that a man could rise, slay, and eat venison, fowl, fish, any- 
thing his appetite might desire. I intend, therefore, to appro- 
priate so much of it as answers my purpose in this discussion. 
How' does the gentleman propose to escape the constitutional 
prohibitions on this subject? Let me read an extract or two from 
that speech. He says : 

" But nothing whicli may be said or done will be sufficient for the emerirency 
while the Government imposes upon itself the responsibilities of the Union with re- 
gard to the reljellious States. This principle must be repudiated ; or it is obvious 
that we are tied hand and foot. Under our constitutional system the individual 
States are authorized to control their domestic institutions (including slavery) in 
their own way. This is the simple truth, and cannot be ignored or gainsayed. It 
is folly to look for emancipation by the nation in contravention of the system through 
which the nation lives and acts. The ministers of the Government are bound by 
the Constitution in the discharge of their duties. Any action of theirs transcending 
this limitation is revolutionary and criminal, and ground for impeachment and pun- 
ishment. Men sworn to the performance of duty according to a certain formula are 
mere instuments, and rightfully possess no volition of their own " 

I subscribe to all that. It is sound. 

"As to giving freedom to five million slaves on the principle of a military neces- 
sity to suppress insurrection, it is an idle dream." 

I agree to the dream also. . 

" Slavery cannot be abolished in a State by act of Congress. The tiling is impos- 
sible.''' 

Very well ; that is right. Now, as the gentleman says, he and 
all other men are tied hand and foot by the Constitution, and it 
is impossible to escape from it ; and Congress has no power under 
the Constitution to emancipate slaves. 

I supposed he was going to come out with some violent mode 
of breaking the bonds that bind him ; but instead of that, he pro- 
poses to get out of it by a process that is perfectly gentle and 
harmless. How is that? Why he tells us that — 

" The human mind has outgrown that superstitious reverence for Government of 
any kind which makes rebellion a crime per se." 

That is his method of getting rid of the bonds of the Constitu- 
tion. The Constitution must be repudiated, because the human 
mind has outgrown that superstitious reverence for Government 
of any kind ! Sir, I would rather remain a dwarf all my life, 



11 -^^ 



than have that wonderful development of outgrowing the Con- 
stitution of ray country, and the oath taken to support it. It it 
be superstition to venerate this Constitution of the fathers, then 
I acknowledge myself most superstitious. I know ot no higher 
crime, save that of rebellion against the government of Heaven, 
than to rebel against this Government of our fathers. _ 

But the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Eliot,] m these 
veiT resolutions, says in substance that "we disclaim aU consti- 
tutional power to interfere with slavery." How then, I inquire, 
are we to emancipate slaves? Why he says— and it is about as 
strange as anything I have heard yet-that '' iAc recognised an- 
ihorii? of the maxim thai the safety of the State is the highest 
law, suhordmates rights of property, and dominates over cml 
relations'' Now, from this fearful subordination, from this 
monstrous domination, I pray that this Government may be 
delivered. Why, sir, is that the higher law? Where did that 
maxim come from? Who recognised the authority of that 
maxim which subordinates, and dominates over the Constitution, 
and over the oaths we have taken to support it? Who recog- 
nised the authority of this hi-her law? I know no higher law 
to control my dut J as a Christian than the Bible. And I know 
of no hic^her law to control my action in governmental matters 
than the^Constitution of my country; and a ^^^Pf^ure from the 
one is no more excusable than a departure from the other. The 
man who proposes to depart from a plain provision of the Cmi- 
stitution is, in a certain sense, a transgressor of ^^^ whole. We 
are told that he who violates one plain command of the moral 
law is a transgressor of the whole; so he who would violate one 
Dlain provisimi of the Constitution is, in the same sense a trans- 
resso^' against the whole. He shows his disloyalty to his Maker 
if he is ^?illing to violate one provision of the Divine law, and 
demonstrates that he is making war against the government of 
Helven; and so, if he violates the Constitution of our country 
willfully and knowingly, he is making war against this ^OYevn- 
ment This is highe?law-a law higher than the Bible; higher 
Sian the Constitution; higher than the oath to support it. 
There is no proposition more monstrous than this;^ none traught 
with greater evil. Why, sir, what is it but revolution to attempt 
to le-Tslate with reference to any higher law than the Constitution 
of the country? What but rebellion against the Government of 
Heaven to attempt to regulate religion and morality by a higher 
law than the Bible? Where did this law come from? Why, 
sir, it made its appearance at the time the Mormon biole came 
Tip; it seemed to rise with it, as if then resurrected; but not so, 
it has been in the world a long time ; and it is upon this pniicipl^ 
of a hidier law which subordinates government and Ulominates over 
civil rekdions" that fierce mobs have armed themselves and madly 
rushed on to bloodshed and riot, to the breaking open of prisons, 
and to the destruction of human life without evidence or trial. 
This is mob law. This is higher law ! Why, sir, it was the spin^^ 



12 

of this same higher law that put forth its sacrilegious hand and 
plucked 

" That forbidden fruit 
Whose mortal taste brought death iuto the -world 
And all our woes." 

Sir, it was this higher-law spirit which "dominated" over 
France in that fearful reign of terror, and made her streets run 
with blood. It is the ravings of that impious spirit in the I^Torth 
which declares the Constitution, framed by our patriot ances- 
tors, to be "a league with death and a covenant with hell." It 
is the spirit that moved the abolition disunionists in the North to 
gather up and furnish the fuel, with which the fier}^ secessionists 
in the South have lighted up that fearful and burning conflagra- 
tion, which is now consuming and desolatino; the whole land in 
its wild and spreading name. It is the spirit determined "to 
rule or ruin" — its motto is, "better reign in hell than serve in 
Heaven." It is this higher-law spirit that lately took possession 
of, the once calm and conservative John Cochrane, changing his 
whole character — making him as fierce and wild as the man who 
dwelt among the tombs, and could not be chained or confined — 
and causing him to cry out in wild fury: " Plunge the whole South- 
ern people, black and u-hite, into a sea of indiscriminate carnage and 
blood!" Sir, it is the spirit which "has hitherto worked, and 
now works, in the children of disobedience." 

But, sir, a war upon the institution of slavery would be, not 
only unconstitutional and revolutionary; not only a criminal vio- 
lation of the plighted faith of Congress and of the Administration, 
but utterl}'- at war with every principle of sound policy. Who ever 
lives to see that fearful and mad policy inaugurated, will see the 
sun of American liberty go down in clouds and darkness to rise 
no more. The last hope of a restoration of the Union — the last 
hope of free government upon this continent — will then siuk«and 
utterly perish. It would seem to be a question of no great diffi- 
culty, to decide Avhat is sound policy, in the conduct of the pres- 
ent war. The object and end of the war, clearly perceived, would 
indicate, at once, the policy that ought to govern it. This is not 
a war between two foreign nations, wholly separated from each 
other, bound together by no ancestral ties, and living under Gov- 
ernments wholly antagonistic to each other. If it was such a war, 
then the policy, now so strangely urged by some gentlemen, 
might be heard with some favor; then quotations from Vattel 
would be in point; for the object and end of such a war would be, 
on our part, simply to subdue, conquer, and drive off our enemy, 
without any regard to the deep hate and intense bitterness of feel- 
ing that might be engendered in the conflict. In such a war it 
might be sound policy (if humanity did not forbid it) to incite 
servile insurrection — burn up, confiscate, waste, and destroy 
property, and press upon our enemy with all the destructive fury 
of tire and sword. But he who regards the present war in that 
L\ght is not prepared, and should never be trusted for a moment, 
to dictate its policy. 



13 

This war has grown out of a rebellion of part of the same peo- 
ple against the authority of their own Government. The great 
mass of the rebels have been deceived, seduced from their allegi- 
ance, and led blindly on to their present hostile position, by a 
few master spirits, arch-traitors, lost to every patriotic emotion, 
but men of great intellectual power and control over others. 
These people, loyal and disloyal, were all bound together by the 
ties of kindred blood, by a common country, language, and his- 
tory, and by the hallowed memories of a glorious struggle by a 
common ancestry, resulting in the establishment of a common 
free Government — a Government which the rebels themselves be- 
lieved was the best the world ever saw. But they were taught 
by their wily leaders that a dominant party was about to turn the 
whole power of that Government against them and their institu- 
tions, to crush and destro}^ them ; and thus they were led into 
rebellion against the Government they had loved. So that the 
sad spectacle is now presented, in the opposing armies, of neigh- 
bor arrayed against neighbor, father against son, and brother 
against brother, preparing to shed each other's blood. 

'Now, with every good man, every friend of his country, and 
with every true patriot, the object and end of the war is not to 
destroy, conquer, and drive off; but, with the least possible destruc- 
tion of property and life, to maintain and establish the authority 
of the Government, and subdue, reclaim, and bring back to their 
allegiance the misguided rebels; and thus bring together and 
harmonize the great family of States in the bonds of "Union and 
common brotherhood, under the glorious old national banner. 
If any man supposes this great and good result can be reached, 
by the destruction and confiscation of property, by making war 
upon slavery in the South, by inciting the slaves to insurrection 
and rebellion, and by a species of warfare so cruel and savage as 
that of arming or encouraging the slaves to make war upon dieir 
masters and upon innocent women and children, he is sadly mis- 
taken; he has much yet to learn of human nature. Such a war 
of aggression upon the constitutional rights of the seceding States, 
would extinguish the last feeling of loyalty, unite them as one 
man, exasperate and drive them to a state of desperation, and 
forever lock, bolt, and bar the door of reconciliation. This mad 
policy would, at the same time, as certainly divide and destroy 
the power of the great Union forces who are now battling for 
the preservation of the Government. All over the ISTorthern 
and Western non-slaveholding States, vast numbers of loyal 
and true men would abandon such a war, or make war upon 
it. Brave officers, and thousands of their troops, now in the 
Union army, would at once disband and lay down their arms ; 
or baud together and turn their arms against those who were 
prosecuting such a war. And the true and loyal men in the 
border States of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, after for- 
saking houses and lands, and their secession neighbors, and 
brothers and fathers and sons — after "suffering so much for 
the Union," could hardly be expected, to join in a war upon 



14 

their own domestic institutions and upon the Constitution of 
their country. What was it, in the revolutionary struggle of 
our fathers with England, that now constitutes the bitter and 
burning memory of that period, transmitted from father to 
son, and never to be forgotten? "What the unpardonable sin of 
England? What but that savage cruelty which armed with 
scalping-knife and tomahawk the wild Indians, and turned them 
loose to murder and destro}' aged men and helpless women and 
children. And what patriot heart does not burn with indignation, 
at the bare thought of that far more savage barbarism, that would 
ally itself to the slaves in a servile war upon their masters? 

Such a policy would, moreover, be the greatest possible cruelty 
to the slaves themselves; for it would certainly result in the de- 
struction and slaughter of a large portion of them. After all that 
has been said on slavery by jyvofcssed philayithropists, still, in the 
present state of society, it remains true that, the abolitionist is 
the worst enemy of the slave, and the humane master his truest 
and best friend. 

The ultra abolitionists, whether they know it or not, have been 
and now are giving the most successful aid to the disunionists of 
the South, and making the most successful war upon the Union. 
The great and prevailiug argument of the leading disunionist, in 
the South and in the border States, has been, and still is, that the 
North, in violation of the Coustitution, intended, and was about 
to turn the struggle into a war for emancipation, and thus "plunge 
the whole population, white and black," into a remorseless and 
bloody struggle. By this argument alone, he has succeeded in 
seducing and drawing into the rebellion thousands- of misguided 
men. Without it, he would have been powerless ; and this argu- 
ment has been furnished and put into his mouth by the northern 
abolitionists. This has been the great question of debate that 
loyal men have met and battled against a thousand times all over 
Kentucky. 

But after the passage of the Crittenden resolutions in July 
last — after the President and his Cabinet had taken strong con- 
servative ground — after every Department of the Government 
stood out, openly committed and pledged to the whole country, 
to prosecute the war for the si7igle purpose of sustaining the Union 
and preserving the Government with the rights of every State 
unimpaired — then it was, that the Union men in Kentucky felt 
themselves furnished with an wiansiuerable argument, and from a 
responsible source. Thus armed and strengthened, the Union men 
renewed the conflict. What was the result? Kentucky is soon 
*' unchcmgeably ranged on the side of the Union'' — she votes men and 
money to carry on the war, and though before then " she had re- 
fused to furnish a single regiment," now, more than twenty-five 
thousand of her brave and loyal sons rally at once under the stars 
and stripes. In view of all this, is it not monstrous that on the 
very first day of our session, men should rise here, and by their 
ill-timed and radical measures revive the old argument of "« loar 
of emancipation y" thus putting it afresh into the mouths of seces- 



15 

sion leaders, crippling and disarming the Union men, and scat- 
tering firebrands through the Union camps? Sir, when Kentuck- 
ians, for the love they bear to the Union, are called to array them- 
selves against their misguided kindred, brothers and ftithers; 
when they are passing through this fiery ordeal; when they are 
contending for every inch of ground, with a martyr firmness and 
patriotic devotion not surpassed at Bunker Hill or Yorktown, 
would it not tax past endurance even the patience of Job, for 
these men in the I^orth, who are subjected to none of these trials, 
to be continually furnishing the arguments and the means to an- 
noy them and destroy their eflbrts ? 

Sir, the salvation of this great country requires that conserva- 
tive men of every political faith should unite, and baud them- 
selves together, to crush rebellion in the South, and subdue and 
put down abolition disunionism in the North. Both are unitedly 
warring against the Government of our country. And I believe 
conservative men will do it. Though I was pained and op- 
pressed with gloomy forebodings at first, yet I am now satisfied 
that, with a large majority of this House, these radical measures 
will meet with no favor whatever. They cannot receive the 
sanction of this House. But if, in this reasonable expectation I 
should be disappointed, I have still one hope left. I believe in 
the honest}^ and firmness of the President. I believe he is him- 
self '■'■ imchangeahly ranged on the side of the Unioji." And if these 
measures should struggle through this House, he would arrest 
them by a prompt exercise of the veto power, and hold up the 
sinking cause of the Union. But if this last hope should perish, 
what then will become of the border States; what will they do? 
I think I can safely answer for Kentucky. If the war, righteously 
begun for the preservation of the Constitution and the Union, 
should be changed to an anti-slavery war, then Kentucky will 
unitedly make war upon that war. And if an army from the 
North should move toward Kentucky, to visit upon her the hor- 
rors of a war for emancipation, then Kentucky will meet that 
army at the threshhold, dispute every inch of ground, burn every 
blade of grass, and resist to the last extremity. 

Should it be said, Kentucky will soon be ready for disunion, if 
that is her temper ; I reply, that so long as Kentucky shall re- 
member the warning voice of Henry Clay, she shall answer, 
^^ Never, never, never!" And if that voice should be forgotten, still 
the united voices of her venerable living patriots — her Critten- 
DENS, her WicKLiFFES, her Holts, and her Davises, would ring 
out over all her hills and valleys, ^^ Never, never !" And when 
these patriots pass away, hosts of younger men, led on by their 
example, will still say, '■'■Never!" No, no; the great mass of Ken- 
tuckians will be true to the memories of the past. They will not 
pronounce this free Government "a failure," and throw it oflf as 
a worn and worthless garment. They will struggle for their 
rights in the Union, and under the Constitution, as best they can, 
and as long as they can. *■ 

An emancipation movement against the rebel States can find 



16 

no shadow of justification from the plea of necessity, sometimes 
urged by northern men. The great Union party have a just cause, 
four times the number of fighting men, and nearly all the money; 
and it is strange that northern men should make this plea, lest it 
should be construed as an indorsement of that idle gasconade of 
the South, which represents one southern man as being a full 
match for four or five northern men, on the field of battle. Such 
a movement against the South finds still less justification as a 
measure of retaliation. It is scarcely ever good p'olicy, and never 
sound morality, to resort to the law of retaliation. Sir, if a man 
traduces me, I cannot aflbrd to slander him in return. If he 
burns my barn, I cannot become a felon, and burn his house. In 
the present war, we have a just and righteous cause, and can well 
afford, to confine ourselves to just and righteous means for Iss 
prosecution. We cannot follow the example of the rebels, uniols 
we w^ould become rebels ourselves. Shall we destroy and confis- 
cate property because they doi? Make allies of slaves, because 
they make allies of Indians ? And shall we violate one provision 
of the Constitution, because they have trampled under foot the 
whole instrument ? " Thou that judgest another, and doest the 
same thing, how shalt thou escape the judgment?" 

Sir, the Union cause, in the border States, has already lost more 
strength by the agitation of this question in Congress, at this ses- 
sion, "than was lost by the defeat of our arms at Bull liun. Gen- 
tlemen should take care, lest in their great zeal to strike off the 
bonds of the slave, they should be preparing chains and slavery 
for themselves and posterity. 

Sir, the fearful responsibility, the deep guilt and crime, of 
plunging this great country into all the horrors of civil war and 
bloodshed, does not rest alone upon the leading secessionists of 
the South; a full share of that criminal guilt is justly chargeable 
to the leading disunion abolitionists of the ISTorth. If this Gov- 
ernment shaTl outride the angry storm now threatening its de- 
struction, and the fearful day of just retribution shall come, may 
it not be justly said to these'leading spirits from the iNTorth and 
the South: You have been co-workers in the attempt to destroy 
the Government of your country. You of the North sought to 
dissolve the Union of these States, 'professedly to destroy slavery. 
You of the South sought to dissolve it, iTrofessedly to protect sla- 
very. You were both disunionists — all rebels against the Gov- 
ernment. As State after State plunged into the gulf of disunion, 
your shouts of triumph from the North, rose up and met the 
pagans of joy from the South. You have smitten a great country 
with desolation and waste. You have crimsoned fields with 
kindred blood. You have filled the whole land with weeping 
widows and orphans. In guilt and crime you have been banded 
together, like Siamese twins, through life, and you ought not to 
be separated in death. It is but just that you should expiate your 
enormous crime together, on the same scaflbld, and together be 
buried in the same traitors' grave. 

SCAMMELL & CO., iVintors, corner of Second street & Indiana avenue, Third Floor .1 




c° \v;7^' ^o 





"o . . * A <V 

.•V" o » " • ■» "^^ 






' .. • 










'bV" 



«^q. 



^^-nK V 





















"oV" 









i> - •< • o 










'o . > • A ><* *-''7V»* .G^ '^ 'o , » 





<> ♦'T7i'» .G^ ^* 




^ •'•• <V^ O^ -..» J,' 



bV 



AO' 
..*l o 

r " 














4/ ^ 








^*\-^£;:.% ^°.i-^'> .**\-J^.t.** 



<^^ 



^'/ \ 












iP*?^ 



.^ ^^4m<. %^j^ ^Mik^ %.A^ 









^\:;^:\ 







• ■ 



'' a9 %. •'••• <r^ "V 



•0 / •^^^'>^ 









*^^,>« 




'^bv^ 








♦* .♦ 




»^ • " • ♦ *<>*. cv . • ^ ' • ♦ "^ 








V 
























